نحو منهج ترجميّ إجماليّ يستند إلى الاسم.

Abstract

This study undertakes to prove that, since each translation inevitably relates to the context, no matter how source-oriented or target-oriented is the approach with which it aligns itself, the notion of connotative sense against that of denotative signification would be contrived because the signification devoid of context is not unique and actual beside the sense described as heterological which is various and fickle unless the latter is self-referential (metalinguistic). In other words, instead of examining the true and only referent as a category of being endowed with real or objective signification, we mistakenly believe that the signified is composite and that the referents would therefore be multiple in proportion to the context, but in reality, the signified is never plural and it is only the metalinguistic stance of the reader that makes it multiple: in fact, the meaning is a metalinguistic artifact, that is to say, discourse categories with grammatical significations instead of true objective ones that we expect. Thus, a sense would be morphological by the very fact that some people consider it in particular from a morphological point of view. The same meaning would be syntactical in the opinion of other persons since they realize it from an exclusively syntactical point of view, and so on. We therefore supported this thesis, first of all, by modeling the whole and the part; so the meaning would be the whole beside the signification that would be the part. This is explained by the fact that ""the signification/part"" integrates the ""meaning/whole"" with other ""significations/parts"" of which the composite ""meaning/whole"" would necessarily be made. At first, since this whole is composite and multiple, it would lend itself to the extrapolation that it would be more specific and